Valley_Boy Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Hi Im after advice/views My dad had minor accident in Aug 06, no damage to his car and small mark on the other car - both at fault. The other person reported accident to his insurer - both insurance companies fought over the claim and eventually claim was off listed. so no payout to either party, never insurance company pursued When hes come to renew his insurance this year - company are saying that this accident even though no claim is still on his record and he has to declare and its roughly costing him £200 extra on his policy each year. Does he have a good case to fight this accident in 2006? which he's seemingly being unfairly penalised for? any help appreciated? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2 Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 are they just trying to recoup the money they spent on fighting the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby_simon Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 he had an accident; this effects his insurance risk profile, thus his premium has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sufu Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I'd change companies, I had a very similar situation with CIS. As it's not actually a claim his No Claims shouldn't be affected. He'd still have to declare the accident on his new insurance, but he'll still get the insurance much cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insurance Jon Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 [ QUOTE ] he had an accident; this effects his insurance risk profile, thus his premium has changed. [/ QUOTE ] what he said. most proposal forms mention incidents not claims, so therefore he has to declare it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nordberg Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Yep - as others have said, it's incidents rather than claims. I had the misfortune of enquiring with my previous insurers what my excess was after a shopping trolley rolled into my car. Never claimed, but when I came to renew I found I had an "incident" on my record which pushed the premium up. Similarly, I had my car stolen/recovered last year and never made a claim, however it's an "incident" so I'm screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sponge Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 [ QUOTE ] I had the misfortune of enquiring with my previous insurers what my excess was after a shopping trolley rolled into my car. Never claimed, but when I came to renew I found I had an "incident" on my record which pushed the premium up. [/ QUOTE ] That's just astounding. Is it any wonder insurance companies have such a bad name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuprabob Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 You're right there it's just a license to print money and not even one insurance company cancome up with an ad on teh TV that doesn't annoy you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 License to print money is right. My motorbikes's being repaired after I was knocked off whilst stationary. They are really ensuring that any part that's marked is replaced (e.g. a slight scuff under the indicator light) which I guess they should but I think they're putting back to brand new condition rather than the 18month old bike that it is. So in this case I may gain a little. However, it's taking 40 days to get it repaired. Of these 5 days are because they don't have a driver/van to return it to me. This means that the loan bike I have will stay with me for an extra 5 days at £100 a day (on the drivers insurance). I'm sure they could have paid someone a lot less than £500 to deliver it back to me. It seems it's in there interest to make the claim to be worth as much as possible. And who's ultimately paying for this....all of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 p.s. When I next renew my insurance I'll have delcare this incident despite me being fault free. Since it's an incident will it affect my premium. If so they that's surely an expense caused by the accident which my policy is meant to protect me from ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 In the last 5 years, something like 4 drivers have rear-ended me. Not one of those was my fault. Renewing Mrs P's insurance, it has been pointed out to me that insurers can see a steady flow if incidents in my history and are therefore assuming that there will be more. Hence a four-figure quote wherever I go. What I'd like to know is, can I sue the gits who have run into me for the expense their negligence has put me to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sponge Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I don't think you can, but I think you should be able to. I thought the idea of insurance was to put you in a position equivalent to that which you were in before an incident (I'm sure there's a better way to write that sentance, but hopefully you get my drift). To me, that means any pay-out should include an amount accommodating for any rise in your own insurance premium as a result of having to declare a (non-fault) incident to your insurers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby_simon Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Insurance premiums are based on the risk profile of the proposal This risk profile is made up of a number of things and one of these is the accidents you have been involved with. The stats show (or did show, I've not seen them for a while) that if you have an accident, even if not your fault, it is then more probable that you will have another one. Now, as you say, 4 people have been into the back of you and none where your fault. Now, could you sue them, that's an interesting one in our litigation led times. yes, it is their fault that your premium has risen, try it (but don;t hold your breath!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Quite. That is, in fact, near enough the exact definition of damages awarded by a Court. As it stands, someone hit me causing me £350 of physical damage. They give me £350. Then, because of their negligence, my premiums go up £200 for 5 years, costing me £1,000. I want to hit someone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insurance Jon Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 go back to the other parties via your legal expenses cover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 [ QUOTE ] I thought the idea of insurance was to put you in a position equivalent to that which you were in before an incident (I'm sure there's a better way to write that sentance, but hopefully you get my drift). To me, that means any pay-out should include an amount accommodating for any rise in your own insurance premium as a result of having to declare a (non-fault) incident to your insurers. [/ QUOTE ] Think this through though - everyone's policy would end up paying for everyone else's policy and it'd spiral out of control until it'd be a billion pounds to insure a shoe Although to be fair I see your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 Yes, I hadn't considered the infinite loop that I might set up (thanks Jon - might try and run that past them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now